Heard about this. Fuckin stupid, makes other metal fans look bad. "Oh i need a DISABILITY claim for listening to music." Sucking up money that could be used for better things with this nonsense. I don't care if it's 'fuckin METAL', he's an idiot.

Gaming the system, even a broken system, is the act of wretched people. It is anti-civilization behaviour. When the system is so perverted that it actively works against you, then you are right to break free. Not otherwise. Collapse is never the preferable outcome, the harm is simply too great and lasts too long. Even if collapse is inevitable, if at the end of it you want you or your generations to be a part of the builders and not the ones that tore it down, you would refrain from taking part.

This man is sick, and that he spoils the image of metal on top of it all only makes him more worthy of contempt. How anti-metal is being propped up by the collective taxes of the population because you cannot independently support yourself? Sucking on the teat of a perverted government empowered by people pretty much exactly like yourself? What does metal music even mean to this man except a wash of noise that arouses certain primal sensations?

Gaming the system, even a broken system, is the act of wretched people. It is anti-civilization behaviour. When the system is so perverted that it actively works against you, then you are right to break free. Not otherwise. Collapse is never the preferable outcome, the harm is simply too great and lasts too long. Even if collapse is inevitable, if at the end of it you want you or your generations to be a part of the builders and not the ones that tore it down, you would refrain from taking part.

This is flawed thinking. One must destroy in order to build (Shiva). Is there any birth without death? Is there anything born that does not come out of death, and will not go back into death? In order for the next order to arise, this current one must fall; why decry the actions of those who bring it down while praising those of the builders of the next? Those builders are simply setting up for another fall, potentially as bad as or worse than this one that is coming! You seem to be attributing moral significance to an amoral process; objectively speaking, there is simply action.

Why assume that civilisation is a good thing? As far as history tells us, it begets both wonders and atrocities; non-civilisation (coincidence with nature as opposed to removal from it) seems to be more neutral in this respect, from our perspective (though, of course, it allows equally well for the interpretation of events as wondrous or atrocious). From this perspective, being "anti-civilisation" is as viable as being "pro-civilisation"; indeed, each attitude necessitates the other, according to the Union of Opposites.

Does no birth without death now mean "lay down and die" or "commit suicide"? I praise the builders because they look to the next, whereas the destroyers do not. They simply destroy. Most likely an inevitable process true enough, but why don't you look at the mechanics of it instead of dealing in broad principles? Those that hunker down and subsist will be the ones that will end up existing by default, human termites have no true future. They will, as inevitably as the collapse itself, reap its full effect. As for the builders setting up for another fall... what about everything that comes in between? It doesn't just happen inevitably by magic does it? Also, does it have no value to you?

You mention me ascribing morality to an amoral process. I did no such thing. I ascribed it to the units of the process; moral creatures. This guy. So what can I take your post to mean regarding him? Do you condone his actions? Would you do them yourself? As for your second paragraph, I have no answer for this but I am biased towards civilization. I love heights and I love wonders. Despite your statement, do you not swing a particular way between civilization / against?

Do you not think that the builders seek to tear down the foundations of what's in the way of their construction? Destroyers and builders are one and the same group, ultimately. I wouldn't call this person a destroyer; he relies on the system that is in place. Why would he seek to "tear down" that which is keeping him afloat? Your notion that destroyers do not look to the future seems unreasonable: why would they be destroying, if not to make way for something else? That's how we see it in the UK, at least. In the end, looking to the future is absent-minded; the present is where everything's happening (including your ideas of the future!). I deal with generalisations because everyone else is far too caught up in specifics: forest for trees, etc.

Rather than having no value, it has the utmost value, as does everything else. I value a good man no less than I value a bad man: how could I know the good man to be good without the bad man? What use would I have for the good man without the bad man? This Universe is characterised by conflicts which generally weigh in favour of goodness/beauty/glory, but we would have none of this without the "negative" elements. I appreciate the world as it is - all in all, it's awesome.

"No birth without death" means use the blood of your enemies to fertilise your soil. I have a gripe with the members of this community who'd like to game the system - not by succumbing to it like this guy, but by playing along with modernity - rather than facilitate its decline. The West is why we can't have nice things: kill the West and start again, as the cycles necessitate.

For myself, I prefer to be apart from high civilisation; tribal society appeals very much to me. If any role fitted me, it'd be that of the Shaman: fuck off into nowhere to find out what you are; tell everyone what they've forgotten when you've worked it out. This is how this one is; it is not to say how any other ought be. Every actor has a specific role to play; every part has a place in the whole.